HUMANISM
Humanism is often associated with a view that rejects the supernatural. The term tends to become appropriated for anti-religious, social, and political movements. Consequently, the International Humanist and Ethical Union defines Humanism as a movement that “stands for the building of a more humane society through an ethic based on human and other natural values in the spirit of reason and free inquiry through human capabilities. It is not theistic, and it does not accept supernatural views of reality.” Nevertheless, I will use the term humanism as a term that connotes the significant and irreplaceable role of the human. This type of Humanism will utilize for its foundation the teachings of the rabbis that “every single human being was created in the image of God” (Genesis 9:6) Theocentric humanism has been addressed by Eugene Korn, Director of Leadership Education at the Shalom Hartman Institute, in his introduction to an article that relates to humanism, where he writes that:
It must be emphasized at the outset that the insistence on 'moral' or 'humane' values does not equate with ethical humanism. These values are theocentric at their core: they are the content of God's Word found in our Written and Oral Torah. As such, they demand no less an unconditional commitment from us than does our a priori obedience to the halachah. The fount of these moral values is the Torah's doctrine that each person is created in God's image, be-tselem Elokim. This doctrine means that a person can somehow reflect God Himself. Like tselem Elokim, the ethical values which flow from it have a theological source, but their application is anthropocentric, focusing on human interaction, protecting human dignity and welfare.
Indeed, in the Philosophy Dictionary published by Oxford University Press, humanism is defined as “any philosophy concerned to emphasize human welfare and dignity.” Accordingly, a system that sees a divine spark in every single human being must be considered a humanistic outlook. Rabbi Aharon Lichtenstein, Rosh Yeshiva of Yeshiva Har Etzion in Alon Shevut, Israel defines Humanism as a “world-view which values man highly.” Judaism and its theocentric faith situate the worth of the human higher than anything tangible, due to his soul that comes from above. In the words of Rabbi Aharon Lichtenstein “religion is, by definition, more humanistic than secularism; in positing a transcendental dimension to his existence, it assumes a nobler view of man.” By placing the human in a world where he can connect to a higher being we treat the human with great importance due to his true essence namely, his soul.
The concept of Tselem Elokim, that man was created in the image of God, is a fundamental principle of Judaism. All ethical questions from abortion to euthanasia or if one is placed in the midst of the Holocaust in a situation where he must decide if he should save many lives by handing over a few, all such dilemmas must begin and end with the notion of Tselem Elokim. Man-made humanism cannot be viewed as ethical. A human that believes that man is only a sophisticated animal that came to existence as a result of a fluke cannot form systems that can be classified as ethical. The value of each and every human being is the greatest contribution of Jewish thought. In the words of Dr. David Patterson, “The Jewish teaching is that a human soul enters the world not by accident but by divine will. Created in the divine image of the Infinite One, a human being has infinite value, a value that rests upon nothing that can be weighed, measured, or observed.” The enlightenment and secular humanism of the nineteenth century rejected the supernatural and the spiritual. Although it attempted to create its own structure of ethics by rational methods such as logic, observation and science, the consequence of the enlightenment was the slaughter of European Jewry. The events of the twentieth century have educated us that when a philosophy purges the soul from its structure it has paved the path to the gas chamber and crematorium.
Accordingly, this paper will trace the history of Jewish thought as it relates to all humans, including the attitude towards the non-Jew. My objective is to demonstrate that the highest, if not the only, form of authentic humanism is one that originates from the revelations at Sinai. I will therefore start with the text of revelation, the Torah, a text that places its emphasis on true humanism, the responsibility towards the other.
TORAH
A religion that teaches that a code of law was handed to them and not to others would seem to indicate that the followers of that system consider themselves superior over others. Indeed other religions label the non-believers as infidels. Judaism, although containing Mitzvot that are commanded only to the Jew, nevertheless is a religion that values every human, Jew and Gentile alike. Every human being is significant to God. To understand the attitude Judaism has toward the Gentile we must begin by identifying the purpose of the Jew according to traditional Judaism. By defining and understanding the Jewish role we could in turn see the appropriate attitude towards the Gentile. The text that we will turn to is the Bible. However, we will approach it through the rabbinic lens.
A significant part of Jewish ritual relates to the calendar and the seasonal holy days. These significant days, and at times periods, are given to the nation of Israel with guidance regarding conduct and reflection. One of the marked days on the calendar is the second day of the Hebrew month of Sivan. This day that precedes the three days of preparation for “Mattan Torah” –the day of the receiving of the Torah- is called “Yom haMeyuchas.” According to the commentators, this day is called “Meyuchas” -which literally means the day of lineage- because on that day, as the Israelites settled around Mount Sinai and prepared themselves for the revelation of the Almighty, they were notified what their mission toward humanity would be. In the book of Exodus (19:6), the nation of Israel is informed by God that; “You shall be to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation” (19:6). The priest is an individual that lives for the sake of others. The goal of the priest is to teach, elevate and guide people spiritually. The great sixteenth-century rabbi, biblical commentator and philosopher Obadiah Seforno explains that when the verse states that the Jews will be a kingdom of priests it is “to teach all of humanity to call out in the name of God and serve him in unison.” On the second day of Sivan, the Children of Israel were taught that Jewish uniqueness is not because they have what others do not, but rather the nation has a special mission as a priest, or educator, to humanity. As the nation of Israel prepared to enter into a pact with the Almighty, they were commanded by Him to remember the complete picture of their mission and that it is for the sake of humanity. Judaism originates with tolerance. In the words of Emanuel Levinas; “The Jewish faith involves tolerance because, from the beginning, it bears the entire weight of all other men.”
According to the narrative of the Torah, the Israelites of the exodus, due to their spiritual failings, were not worthy of entering into the Promised Land and thus were unable to embark on their task to serve as universal priest. The person interested in serving as an educator must first reach a level of knowledge and maturity, and only following that can he be qualified to elevate others. The generation of the wilderness failed in that mission and humanity must be patient as it takes time for the teachers to graduate and become worthy mentors. Rabbi Obadiah Seforno remarks that the nation of Israel will not be able to fulfill its mission until the Messianic era. Waiting for the Messianic age is a central theme in Jewish tradition. However, it is not a passive wait, but rather a time of spiritual activity. It is a time for the Jews to study their tradition, self-examine their action and, as Saadia Gaon teaches, reject blind obedience. The message of the Torah is that the Jew must “find favor in the eyes of God and man” (Proverbs 3:4)
Once the Israelites were no longer on the fast track towards the ultimate mission, they became a nation that at first endeavored to settle in its homeland and afterward to learn to survive in the Diaspora. I would like to first focus on the history of the Jewish people as they began settling in the land of Canaan. On the surface, the commandment of God and the actions of the Jews regarding the dwellers of the land of Canaan might appear contrary to God-based humanism and might appear as blind religious fanaticism. Yet by analyzing the circumstances we will understand that this is not the case.
SETTLING IN THE LAND OF ISRAEL
In the book of Deuteronomy, Moses tells the Israelites in the name of God regarding their conquest of the Holy Land, “But of the cities of these peoples which the LORD your God gives you as an inheritance, you shall let nothing that breathes remain alive” (20:16). On the surface, what God commands the children of Israel to do, as they conquer the land of Canaan, is nothing less than genocide. The obvious question is: How can the God that commands concern and responsibility for the other turn around and demand the annihilation of a nation? However, to understand this and other similar commandments we must understand the culture and lack of morals of the dwellers of the land of Canaan.
Earlier in Deuteronomy Moses warned the Israelites that:
When the LORD your God cuts off from before you the nations which you go to dispossess, and you displace them and dwell in their land, take heed to yourself that you are not ensnared to follow them, after they are destroyed from before you, and that you do not inquire after their gods, saying, ‘How did these nations serve their gods? I also will do likewise.’ You shall not worship the LORD your God in that way; for every abomination to the LORD which He hates they have done to their gods; for they burn even their sons and daughters in the fire to their gods. (12: 28-31)
The negative outlook the Torah has on idolatry and consequently on people that live for the sake of idolatry is not because of the philosophical mistake but rather its repugnant way of life. As Levinas pointed out, “idolatry is fought not on account of its errors, but on account of the moral degeneracy that accompanies it.” The actions perpetrated by these nations in not just destructive to the children of Israel but rather to humanity. Judaism that teaches, “Man is dear because he is created in the image of God” (Misnah Avot 3:14), cannot allow a message of degeneracy to come forth from the land of education. The Israelites must fight paganism for the survival of their message concerning the sanctity of the human being and our ethical obligations to one another. If the message does not endure it is not just a loss for the Israelites but rather for all dwellers of the planet. Although clearing the promised land of idolatry was a priority for the Children of Israel, killing was not the first option. Before the crossing of the Jordan River, Joshua sent notices to the dwellers of the land and provided for them a list of options which included abandoning their pagan practices or leaving the land. The killing was only a last resort due to the significance of humanity as a whole. Since the land was to become an educational center for humanity, the corruption of the idolaters needed to be uprooted. Once the pagan obstacles were removed, the nation was ready for the construction of humanity’s spiritual hub: the Temple.
THE TEMPLE
With the construction of the Temple in Jerusalem by King Solomon, the Nation of Israel had the opportunity to begin their mission as a center of spirituality. The Bible is very clear that the Temple in Jerusalem is intended as a home of spirituality and prayer for all nations. When Solomon completed the structure and turned to God in prayer he said:
Moreover, concerning a foreigner, who is not of Your people Israel, but has come from a far country for Your name’s sake (for they will hear of Your great name and Your strong hand and Your outstretched arm), when he comes and prays toward this temple, hear in heaven Your dwelling place, and do according to all for which the foreigner calls to You, that all peoples of the earth may know Your name and fear You, as do Your people Israel, and that they may know that this Temple which I have built is called by Your name. (King I, Chapter 8: 41-43)
Clearly the Temple was for the all nations and the Israelites understood that the dwellers of the land of Israel have a role in the welfare of humanity. So too, the prophet Isaiah, although talking about the Temple of the future, nevertheless mentions that “My house shall be called a house of prayer for all nations” (Isaiah 56:7). The Talmud, notes in the name of Rabbi Elazar, “The seventy bulls offered on the holiday of Sukkoth are brought for the welfare of the seventy nations. Rabbi Yochanan says, ‘Woe to the nations that have lost their protection and are not even aware of it, when the Temple was standing, the sacrifices in the temple would atone for their sins, now with the destruction who will atone for them?’” (Talmud Sukkah 55b). The Temple and the teachings that emanate from the Temple Mount were to remind the Jew of his responsibility to humanity and not allow his commitment to tradition to disregard the other. As the priests would offer the special Sukkot offerings, the Israelites would utilize the opportunity to remember that true humanism comes from a system that sees the divine in every being and that the Jew is to carry this message to humanity for the sake of humanity. Unfortunately, the unifying structure of the Temple was destroyed and the Jewish people had to adjust to the concept of exile in the Diaspora. With no physical homeland, the Jews were to find their home not in the land of the message but rather in the message itself: the Sifrei Kodesh - holy text.
THE MISHNAH AND TALMUD
Although a significant segment of the population returned to the land of Israel with the construction of the second Temple, the Diaspora began with the destruction of the first Temple due to the strong Jewish presence in the exile. However, the Temple in Jerusalem was the heart and soul of Jewish existence, and as long as the structure stood, Judaism had a hub to keep the nation united. Following the destruction of the Second Temple and the aftermath of the Bar Kokhba revolt (131-133 A.D.), the population of Jews outside of Israel increased drastically. The devastation that came about as a result of the revolt affected the Jewish people greatly and commenced a new era.
Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, known as “Rabbeinu HaKadosh”-our holy rabbi- became a key figure in the history of the Jewish people. Following the destruction in the southern region of the land of Israel, the center of Jewish life shifted northward to the Galilee region, specifically in the cities of Sepphoris and Tiberias. Rabbeinu HaKadosh is best known as the chief “editor” or “redactor” of the Mishnah. He lived in Bet She'arim where he had his yeshiva (Talmud Sanhedrin 32b). Due to his failing health, he moved toward the end of his life to Sepphoris where the air was considered healthier (Talmud Ketubbot 103b). The Talmud discusses in several places Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s relationship with the Roman emperor Antoninus. Although historians have struggled in identifying the latter, the Talmudic references indicate that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s position was recognized by the Roman administration.
Maimonides, in his introduction to his commentary on the Mishnah, after addressing Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s greatness, ethically and politically, states that “he gathered all the laws and rabbinic teachings including disputes from the time the Torah was given at Mount Sinai until the present time, and edited the Mishnah which includes commentary on all the Mitzvot recorded in the Torah.” The compilation of the Oral Law in the Mishnah is not new information, but rather a lucid text that clarifies the old. For rabbinic Judaism the Bible, or the Torah, is not a book that can be comprehended by reading the text on its own, but rather must be accompanied with an Oral Tradition that transmits the accurate intention of the Author. The Mishnah is a text that assists in the understanding of the Torah. However, it was not intended to record all of the oral tradition. The word Mishnah itself means to “review orally” and that indeed was the objective of the Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, that scholars would memorize the text (Talmud Kidushin 30a). Three centuries later, the rabbis compiled a far more detailed text that became the foundation for Jewish law, ritual, and philosophy. In the three centuries following the redaction of the Mishnah, rabbis throughout Israel and Babylonia analyzed, debated and discussed that work. By the end of the fifth century the vast material was compiled by the rabbinic scholars Rav Ashi and Ravina into the Talmud.
A nation with no homeland would naturally be expected to vanish from the face of the earth. The Jews, even after being exiled, persecuted and massacred, somehow survived. The mystery of Jewish endurance is one that perplexed many, including Mark Twain, who wrote:
The Egyptian, the Babylonian, and the Persian rose, filled the planet with sound and splendor, then . . . passed away. The Greek and the Roman followed. The Jew saw them all, beat them all, and is now what he always was, exhibiting no decadence, no infirmities of age, no weakening of his parts. … All things are mortal but the Jew; all other forces pass, but he remains. What is the secret of his immortality?
Without a doubt, the Talmud preserved the Jewish identity, and became a homeland for the Jew. Yet this text also turned into a major source of trouble for the welfare of the Jewish nation.
Talya Fishman has noted that a textualization of rabbinic Judaism occurred in the Middle Ages and that “the authority of the text supplanted the master-disciple relationship through which tradition had been transmitted for centuries.” However, with the popularity and availability of the text, that Jewish world faced a serious challenge from their Christian hosts. Accusations were being brought by Christians who made numerous accusations against the Talmud. Nicholas Donin of La Rochelle, a Jewish convert to Christianity in early thirteenth-century Paris, is known for his role in the first public disputation between Jews and Christians that led to the first burning of copies of the Talmud. In the summer of 1263 there is again a dispute, this time in Barcelona, under the auspices of Jaime I, King of Aragon, between Rabbi Moses ben Nahman (Nahmanides) of Gerona, the most profound scholar of Spanish Jewry in his day, and Fray Pablo Cristia, a convert from Judaism who joined the Dominicans. The burning of the Talmud was often the result of these disputations. The fact that the Talmud was always at the core of attacks on Judaism indicates the significant role the text had on Jewish thought and practice.
After establishing the centrality of the Talmud in Jewish thought, I would like to address statements that on the surface would appear as anti-Gentile. However, with an appreciation of the big picture of what Judaism is about, all statements can be clarified and will indeed fit into the humanist core of Judaism.
In 2003, David Duke published a book entitled Jewish Supremacism: My Awakening to the Jewish Question. The goal of the book, according to the author is to “examine and document elements of ethnic supremacism that have existed in the Jewish community from historical to modern times.” In it the author states that the Jews “waged an unrelenting ethnic war against Gentiles since the days of their sojourn in Egypt.” The author continues by providing a list of blatant expressions of ethnic supremacism that include:
• Israelites are a “chosen people,” chosen by God above all the other peoples of the world.
• Israelites have a right to rule over all other people and are promised that they will someday own and rule over the whole world.
• Israelites are commanded to murder all the people of the lands where they intend to live and to kill all the people of foreign nations that do not submit themselves in slavery.
• Israelites are forbidden to make slaves of their own people, but are encouraged to enslave non-Israelites whom they may pass down as slaves to their descendants forever.
• Israelites are forbidden to intermarry or “mix their seed” with other peoples.
Duke continues his assault by stating that “the Talmud only intensified the Torah’s chauvinism” and that “a major Jewish resource, the Jewish Encyclopedia, confirms the Talmud’s hateful anti-Gentile teachings.”
Although Duke’s work is full of inaccuracies and lies and most probably should be ignored, I have used him as an example of the typical anti-Semitic attacks on Jews and on their center intellectual pillar, the Talmud.
As stated earlier, Judaism never intended to rule the world. The goal was rather to produce a nation that like its forefather Abraham would live for the sake of the other. The Rabbis tell us that after Abraham would feed travelers that would stop by in his inn, he would inform them that he does not deserve the thank you, but rather thanks are due to the Creator of heaven and earth. So too, the nation of Israel was designated to serve humanity as an educator. As Levinas states regarding the word chosen, “The sense of being chosen is less the pride of someone who has been called than the humility of someone who serves.” Judaism never wished for political dominance and was never imperialist. As Levinas so eloquently states: “In Judaism the certainty of the absolute’s hold over man-or religion- does not turn into an imperialist expansion that devours all those who deny it. It burns inwards, as an infinite demand made on oneself, an infinite responsibility. This fact transforms Judaism into a modern religion, a religion of tolerance.”
Nevertheless, there are indeed several statements in the Talmud that require clarification. The Talmud, in a discussion that addresses payments that must be made for damages caused by a person’s animal, states the following: “If an ox of an Israelite gores an ox of a Canaanite there is no liability; but if an ox of a Canaanite gores an ox of an Israelite...the payment is to be in full” (Talmud Baba Kamma 37b). This and other Talmudic statements that seem to discriminate against non-Jews, and have been the core of anti-Semitic remarks, must be explained if Judaism is indeed a religion of tolerance. To assist us in dealing with this issue we must introduce Rabbi Menachem Ben Shlomo Ha-Me’iri (1249–1315) of Provence. Me’iri was a rabbi, Talmudist and Maimonidean, and is known for adopting a unique, comprehensive position regarding non-Jews that could assist us in the modern age to understand the Talmudic statements regarding Gentiles.
The main concept that we could extract from Me’iri’s writings is a term he coined: “nations restricted by religious practices.” The idea behind the term is that statements recorded in the Talmud regarding non-Jews, relate specifically to the ones that were alive during Talmudic times. Since the nations of the past lacked any religion and had no regard for other humans and indeed often as part as their pagan practices killed others, the Jew hade no responsibility towards them. However, as the nations improved morally and followed a religion that restricts them, due to ethical principles, according to Me’iri, the Jew must treat the non-Jew and his or her property as another Jew would be treated. Me’iri, with his understanding that Judaism demands self-examination, indicates that the core of Judaism is for the welfare of not just the “chosen” people but rather for all humans. Judaism, therefore, is a religion of true humanism: one that originates from the Creator of all humans.
Me’iri’s approach to the issue is unique among his contemporaries of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. Other great authorities of the period were more concerned with the preservation of Judaism as it was under attack from the Church. A minority that wishes to survive, at times, must focus on short-term challenges. Thus, rabbinic statements that isolate the Jew from his neighbors and, at times, make statement that are derogatory were a temporary necessity. As Jacob Katz notes on this issue, “The definition of the Jewish position was the product of the need for self-identification and for self-protection from the impact of the Gentile world.”
However with the Jewish emancipation and the abolition of discriminatory laws against the Jews in Europe, the rabbis understood that a new attitude must be formed vis-à-vis the non-Jewish world. As Jews were being considered as equal to other citizens, Rabbinic authorities have turned to the Me’iri to explain the difficult Talmudic statements and thus were able to demonstrate that Judaism indeed is a religion of humanism. Statements from the Ghetto cannot be used to identify the true meaning of the religion. What a Jew said about a crusader as he wiped out a Jewish village or what was uttered regarding an SS soldier as he placed children on cattle carts cannot be used to understand the true philosophy of Jewish tradition. As stated by Jacob Katz in the beginning of his book Exclusiveness and Tolerance, “The relationship between Jews and Gentiles is at all times a reciprocal one. The behavior of the Jews towards their neighbors is conditioned by the behavior of the latter towards them, and vice versa.”
MODERNITY
As humanity welcomed the Modern era, the Jew was facing a new world that introduced great opportunity, however not without serious challenge. Emancipation, which led to active participation of Jews in the civil society, as well as a declining influence of rabbinical leadership, changed the face of the Jewish communities of Europe. Traditional yeshivas were being abandoned by young Jews as the doors of universities were being opened. In an era of society that looked ahead to a better future, voices of wisdom from the past were viewed as archaic and were being disregarded.
Among the many challenges facing the traditional community, was again the apparent lack of respect that Judaism had for the other. Humanism, a term that denotes moral philosophies that abandon theological dogma in favor of purely human values, was the Zeitgeist of the nineteenth century. How could the modern Jew turn to the Talmud for guidance and inspiration when the Talmud states that “You are called Adam, (man) but the nations of the world are not called Adam?” (Talmud Yevamos 61a; Bava Metzia 114b; Kerisus 6b). The challenge of the modern age was real, but the true protectors of Jewish tradition, the rabbis that understood the new reality and were ready to face it, were there to rescue a three thousand year old tradition. I would like to focus on one of those rabbis -Israel Liphshitz (1782- 1861).
The study of the Mishnah has always been part of the curriculum of the educated Jew. When Rabbi Israel Liphshitz published his Tiferes Yisrael on the Mishnah, it became an instant hit. Liphshitz was one of the first modern authorities to tackle complex contemporary issues including dinosaur fossils and the age of the universe. The issue that pertains to our discussion is his commentary on the rabbinic statement that “only Jews are called Adam” (Talmud Yevamot 61a).The quote is from Liphshitz’ commentary on tractate Avot (3:14):
This statement is indeed difficult to understand, after all, all humans are created in the image of God and the admirable among the nations have a portion in the world-to–come, so why are they not considered Adam? What seems to me is that if we analyze the status of the Children of Israel vis-à-vis the status of the Nations, we will see a difference. When the Israelites were in Egypt, all of humanity, including Israel, were like orphans traveling in the dark, without knowledge of God. Moses himself had to ask God how to introduce the latter to children of Israel. Even after the miracles of the Exodus and the crossing of the Red Sea the nation was still attached to idols. Clearly the Jewish nation at the time was contaminated from the filth of idolatry no less than the Egyptians. They were not aware of their responsibility towards God or one another or even to themselves. This condition was prevalent among all the nations of the time, even among the wisest of them. They worshiped animals and prayed to plants, trees and mountains as if they were deities. They also offered their own children as sacrifices. God had mercy on humanity and remembered his pact with Abraham his servant, and chose his descendants as priests and educators to humanity. Thus God appeared in Egypt, a land of wisdom at that time and through plagues and wonders opened the eyes of the children of Israel and they saw who is actually running the world. The children of Israel continued to gain knowledge of God as they crossed the sea and then with the public appearance at Mount Sinai. At Sinai amidst the fire, darkness, clouds, and fog, He taught them his commandments, ordinances, and Torah that includes all human obligations. All that was taught to the nation did not come to them through their intellectual research but rather through a revelation. However this was not so regarding the other nations. As the children of Israel were becoming closer to God humanity were still in a state of spiritual slumber. All of the nations’ future accomplishments came through their own intellect, and we can definitely say that they made themselves. Since many of their values and human responsibilities they did learn from Israel and many other laws they learnt naturally until eventually the light of enlightenment shined upon them. As a result if we would analyze the lowest of the nations of today he would be better than the best of the nations of the past. So over time and through effort the nations of the world made themselves. The result is that both the children of Israel and the Nations of the world have an attribute that the other lacks. The attribute that the nations have is that they, through free will and by their own means, made themselves. This clearly is a quality that the children of Israel are lacking since their knowledge comes from the revelation and only in the merit of their forefathers. However the children of Israel do have a feature that the nations do not. Since revelation is what guided the former, there are many concepts the human mind cannot obtain through reason. Thus the nations will not accept them since they cannot be rationalized. In addition, given that their enlightenment came through reason, the nations that have not opened their eyes remain contaminated with the old pagan philosophies. The children of Israel on the other hand are committed to all the teachings of the Torah, even the ones that are beyond comprehension. Therefore the children of Israel are comparable to Adam. All humans when they appear in this world are lacking intellect until their minds develop. Adam on the other hand was different. The moment he gained the spirit of God he was a knowledgeable being with an understanding of his responsibilities. The children of Israel are analogous to Adam not because they are superior but rather since their intellect came from a revelation and not by a natural process. As a result, Jews being called Adam is not a compliment but rather testifies that their accomplishments come from the hand of God.
In addition to answering the original question, Liphshitz provides the rabbinic student a method in which he can appreciate the appearance of a new world fashioned by modernity. What Liphshitz is stating by comparing the revelation at Sinai to the enlightenment is that the intellectual and philosophical developments of the new era must be welcomed, since humanity has reached maturity. However, this “welcoming” came with the recognition that enlightenment and modernity could be quite a threat to the welfare of traditional values.
During the “Age of Enlightenment” in which reason was advocated, traditional institutions, customs, and morals were under attack. Religion was considered an impediment in the minds of thinkers that imagined a utopian beautiful society. This idea was expressed by John Lennon in his song “Imagine,” where he says that the perfect world is one where “there's no countries, nothing to kill or die for and no religion too.”
Indeed the rabbinic world understood that something must be done to protect the youth from a movement that is sweeping them away from their heritage. The loss of Jewish heritage is not just a private concern of one ethnic group but rather a loss for humanity. For if humanity loses the guiding light of Judaism and Torah, man-made ethics which are considered humanistic can indeed result in inhumane actions. The question and thus the debate was: what can be done? For some this meant that walls must be erected and the Jew returned to the ghetto- if not physically, then at least spiritually. Others, like the German rabbis of the nineteenth century, Samson Raphael Hirsch and Ezriel Hildesheimer, approached modernity with a measure of acceptance. Yet what Liphshitz addresses regarding the state of man due to the enlightenment indicates not just an approval, but rather a sense of a new revelation that may be considered Messianic.
THE MESSIANIC PERIOD
The great codifier of Torah law and Jewish philosophy, Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon (1135-1204), known as Maimonides, compiled what he refers to as the Shloshah Asar Ikkarim, the “Thirteen Fundamental Principles” of the Jewish faith. Maimonides refers to these thirteen principles of faith as “the fundamental truths of our religion and its very foundations.” The twelfth principle relates to the belief in the arrival of the Messiah and the messianic era. In Maimonides’ words, “We believe and affirm that Mashiach will come. The Mashiach will surpass all the kings who have ever ruled in terms of his grandeur, his greatness, and his honor.” The concept of a Messiah or Mashiach, which literally means “The Anointed One,” is central for the Jewish faith since it provides purpose to history. References to Messiah appear in several places in the Bible. However, the oral tradition clarifies the Jewish view of the anointed one. The Messiah is to usher in the messianic age that will lead to peace in the world. In the words of Maimonides, “He will then perfect the entire world, [motivating all the nations] to serve G-d together, as it is written, in Zephaniah (3:9): ‘I will make the peoples pure of speech so that they will all call upon the Name of G-d and serve Him with one purpose.’” Maimonides points out that many of the supernatural references to the messianic era are allegories and should not be taken literally. Maimonides continues by stating that:
Although Yeshayahu states, “The wolf will dwell with the lamb, and the leopard will lie down with the young goat,” these [words] are an allegory and a riddle. They mean that Israel will dwell securely together with the wicked gentiles who are likened to wolves and leopards, as in the verse “A wolf of the deserts despoils them, a leopard watches over their cities.” (Yirmeyahu 5:6) [In this era, all nations] will return to the true faith and no longer plunder or destroy. Instead, at peace with Israel, they will eat that which is permitted, as it is written by Isaiah: “The lion shall eat straw like the ox.”
Maimonides ends the chapter by noting that the greatness of the era is not just for the children of Israel but rather, “In that era there will be neither famine nor war, neither envy nor competition, for good things will flow in abundance and all the delights will be as freely available as dust. The occupation of the entire world will be solely to know G-d.” By the Jew living his day to day life with the Messianic Period in mind, he bears in mind that his identity as a Jew is in essence a responsibility. The Messianic concept protects the Jew from fanaticism by keeping his commitment to God in check and remembering that his existence is for the other. True humanism is Messianic Humanism.
Clearly, for Maimonides the messianic era is a period of enlightenment for humanity. Liphshitz most probably sensed messianic traces in Western philosophy. Although he was aware of the many problems and dilemmas the modern era produced, and indeed it is considered as “a messianism without religion,” nevertheless, as a traditional Jew, he saw the developments of his days as a progression that is preparing the world for the messianic era. The intellectual maturity of humanity for Liphshitz was clearly not a coincidence but rather part of a master plan of the Creator and Director of history to prepare the world for the Mashiach. When that period eventually arrives secular enlightenment, that is currently hostile towards religion, will be infused with the voice from Sinai and Jerusalem and will supply the world with true ethical humanism.
The idea that developments that have and are occurring in the modern era relate to the Mashiach and the Messianic era, are not exclusive to Liphshitz. Numerous Jewish thinkers see the developments of the past two centuries as a preliminary stage for the awaited era.
The Mishnah at the end of Tractate Sota (9:15) addresses a period that the Mishnah labels as “Ekveta D’mashiach” the heel of the Messianic period, the phase in history that will antedate the coming of the Mashiach. The vision that the Mishnah presents is quite negative. The Mishnah predicts that in the “Ekveta D’mashiach”
insolence will increase, and inflation will soar the vine will give its fruit but wine will be dear, and the government will turn to heresy, and there will be no rebuke, the meeting place of sages will be used for prostitution and the Galilee will be destroyed and the Gavlan desolated, and the border dwellers will wander about from city to city but will not be pitied, the knowledge of scholars will be lost, those who fear sin will be despised, and the truth will be hidden; youths will shame old men and old men will stand up for youngsters; sons will shame fathers and daughters will rebel against mothers, a daughter-in-law will be against her mother-in-law and a man’s enemies are the members of his household the face of the generation will be like the face of the dog; and the son is not ashamed before his father. On whom can we rely? On our Father in Heaven.
For some rabbinic authorities the pessimistic predictions of the Mishnah are coming to realization in the modern era. One of the twentieth century Jewish thinkers that connected the ancient text to current events was the influential Orthodox rabbi, Talmudic scholar, and Jewish philosopher Rabbi Eliyahu Eliezer Dessler (1892-1953). Dessler, influenced heavily by the ethical Mussar movement but having similarly gained proficiency in Kabbalah and works of Hasidic Judaism, has become popular through his work Michtav me-Eliyahu which is a collection of his correspondence and ethical writings, published posthumously by his pupils. Rabbi Dessler assesses the modern world as one that is “an external generation that does not seek inner truth; all the good is not for the sake of heaven. Its world is one of theater and games, all its thoughts are imaginations and true reality is concealed from them. The world is like a mental institution where imagination is reality.” Yet for Dessler the greatest flaw of modernity is one that comes from within Judaism, the State of Israel.
One of the major dilemmas that the traditional Jew faced in the early twentieth century was the movement of “Secular Zionism.” Jews have been praying for two thousand years that the Merciful Almighty return them to their homeland guided by the Mashiach. The conventional image of the return was of a homecoming led by a righteous traditional rabbinic personality who in addition to his Torah knowledge and Torah character, would serve as a qualified political leader. However, the modern movement that encouraged Jews to return to the Promised Land was mainly secular, beginning largely as a response by European Jewry to anti-Semitism and in essence was a branch of the broader phenomenon of modern nationalism that was spreading across Europe. Theodore Herzl, despite his long beard, was not a rabbinic authority. How can the Jew that has prayed three times a day for a spiritual return to Zion be guided by people that reject God’s role in history? Due to this dilemma, some, like the followers of the Satmar Rabbi Joel Teitelbaum have rejected the State of Israel and would not even vote in an election. For Teitelbaum, Yom Ha’Atzmau‘t, Israel Independence Day, is a “terrible Day of Blasphemy.” The reason for Satmar’s strong stand against the State is that it is “a conspiracy against G-d and his Messiah, by establishing their Kingdom of Atheism over the Jewish People and by uprooting the Holy Torah.” For Teitelbaum, the purpose of the Messianic return to Zion is for the nation of Israel to come back to the spiritual land of Israel and serve as a light to the nations of the world by teaching the ethical humanism of the Torah. If the movement that is behind the homecoming of the Jewish people is lacking the values of the Torah it cannot fulfill its mission to humanity.
In Michtav me-Eliyahu, Rabbi Dessler states that the “insolence” referred to in the “Ekveta D’mashiach” of the Mishnah, alludes to the secular Israeli State. He condemns the State of Israel as “arrogant in their belief that it is their power and strength that gave them the land.” For Rabbi Dessler, the secular essence of Zionism is incompatible with the traditional messianic vision. Thus the negative reality fits in well with the tone of the “Ekveta D’mashiach” of the Mishnah. Yet there was another approach to the dilemma taken by some rabbis, which saw a “divine spark” in what was on the surface godless.
DIVINE SPARK IN THE SECULAR
Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook (1865-1935) the first Ashkenazi chief rabbi of Palestine argued that modern Jewish nationalism, even in its most secular mode, expresses the divinity within the Jewish soul and signifies the beginning of the messianic age.
Kook believed that secular Zionists are unknowingly bringing the Messiah and commencing the period of true humanism. All Jews, he believed, have within themselves a divine spark that motivates them to fulfill God's will even when they do not intend to do so. Secular Zionism is a manifestation of this divine spark. Through divine guidance, history is inexorably progressing toward the messianic age, and secular Zionism is an essential part of this process. Religious Jews, according to Rabbi Kook, should support Zionism, while recognizing the religious significance that secular Zionists themselves do not see.
Rabbi Kook was not the only Jewish thinker with a positive approach to the secular movement. Rabbi Yisachar Shlomo Teichtal was a Hungarian rabbi who was a follower of the Rabbi of Munkacs, Rabbi Chaim Elazar Shapiro. This rabbi of Munkacs and thus Teichtal were strong opponents of all types of Zionism. However, as a result of the outbreak of World War II, Rabbi Teichtal changed his position on Zionism. In his book Eim Habanim Semeichah, written during his wanderings in hiding from the Nazis, he makes a case for Zionism and a call for the Jewish people to unite and rebuild the land of Israel, bringing about the ultimate redemption. Teichtal addresses the issue of the secular element of Zionism and states that although in reality it is a secular movement nevertheless it is possible for such a movement to have a divine spark. Teichtal states that “from rabbinic sources it seems that the proclamation of the redemption will come from a non-kosher bird and although it is difficult to comprehend this is the divine will.” The concept of non-observant individuals serving as a tool to fulfill the will of God is difficult for Teichtal to grasp. Nevertheless, he sees the secular movement of Zionism that originates in modern nationalism as one that has a divine spark.
Once we see the idea of a divine spark in the secular as it relates to Zionism, we can return to our analysis of Liphshitz and apply the concept of the divine spark to the Enlightenment. Although the movement is characterized by belief in the power of human reason without God, nevertheless, for Liphshitz a movement that believes in creating a better world has divine spark and should be viewed as a precursor to the era where all humans are valued due to their true value, namely the divine spark that is imbued with in them.
One of the founders of the Marburg School of Neo-Kantianism was the Jewish philosopher Hermann Cohen (1842 –1918). Cohen believed that ethics had to be universal and thus must aim toward the entire society and achieve universal global justice. Seeing the advancement of humankind as the purpose of Jewish teachings, Cohen, using the Messiah concept, writes,
The distinguishing mark of the Jewish religion is its idea of the One God with its corollary, the one Messianic mankind. With this concept of the one mankind which will acknowledge the one God, Israel prophets destroy paganism. And they see in the message of one mankind-which the Jewish people are meant to bring to the nations of the world-the reason for Israel's chosenness.
Viewing the Messianic era as one that is for the sake of humanity, Cohen comes to reject Zionism. He goes on to write that his messianic view is very different than the Zionist one and that there is “a dividing wall between our Messianic Judaism and Zionism.” He continues with his Messianic mankind idea by stating:
We cannot conceive of a Judaism devoid of hope for a Messianic mankind. And we feel that those who think Judaism and its basic teachings are as a matter of principle reserved for the Jewish people alone deny the One God of Messianic mankind. We regard Israel's chosenness solely as history's means to accomplish the divine chosenness of mankind.
For Cohen, there is a spiritual kinship and symbiosis between the German and the Jewish ethos. Cohen notes that “Germany's humanistic ideals propounded in her philosophy and literature during the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries are in full accord with the Messianic ideals of prophetic Judaism.” Wendell S. Dietrich writes that in Cohen’s view, there was a shift executed by nineteenth-century Jewish Reform teaching “from an expectation which couples a personal messianic figure with the coming of a messianic era, to an expectation of a messianic age. This age is envisaged as a future historical state of affairs characterized by just relations among men and a universal recognition of the one true God.” In Cohen’s idealism “the moral concept of the new world history is our real promised land.” Given that Cohen does not view the Messianic age as a physical return to the Land of Israel, Cohen’s Messianic vision cannot be considered as part of the traditional Jewish belief. Denying the physical entity of the Messiah, according to Maimonides, has no place in Rabbinic Jewish thought. Yet even for the traditional thinker like Liphshitz- a product of the traditional Yeshiva that without a doubt believed in the physical return to the land as part of the Messianic era- it is possible to see the advancement of the philosophy that believes in global justice, as one that contains the divine spark and indeed, as Zionism, be considered Messianic. In no way does Liphshitz agree with Cohen that the humanism of the nineteenth-century is the Messiah, nevertheless he saw it as one that prepared the world for this era and indeed was Messianic.
Since Cohen lacked full understanding of Jewish tradition and the true meaning of the messianic age, he was mistaken by believing that Zionism rejected the messianic idea. Legitimate Jewish thinkers understood that Zion is not just the land of the past for the Jews but rather also the land of the future. Humanity needs the children of Israel to return to Palestine and form a State there for the sake of all nations. Although progress has been made by humanity in the era of Enlightenment, in no way can “ethical monotheism” be considered the “ideal Israel.” The moral destiny of the Jews cannot be fulfilled in Germany and be founded on German culture, since man-made values that emanate from Athens cannot replace the ethics from Sinai and Zion. The Germans of World War II have, unfortunately, proven beyond doubt that Judaism and German Idealism have no common philosophy of life.
HOLOCAUST
The atrocities of the Holocaust and the fact that such slaughter and destruction was man- made oblige all humans to do a considerable amount of rethinking and soul searching. In the words of Emil Fackenheim, the Holocaust is “the rupture that ruptures philosophy.” One of the many difficulties facing the post-Holocaust intellectuals was: how can the “Age of Enlightenment and Reason” produce a regime that perpetrated such heinous crimes? How can a century and a half of human progress culminate in such barbaric acts? Aren’t blood libels, expulsions and massacres part of the anti-Semitism of the past? Is Auschwitz the result of the age of humanism?
However, one’s definition of “Human” will characterizes one’s attitude towards life and define what one considers right and wrong. For a student of the Social Darwinist thought, for example, the broad definition of “Human” is not enough to prevent a superior race from exterminating the inferior one. French anthropologist Vacher Delafouge, addressing the thinking of natural law, wrote in the 1880s, “I am convinced that in the course of the next century millions of people will kill each other because of a one-degree difference in their skull-index.” On the other hand, one who believes in a Divine Being understands that human existence is not an accident. The believer in G-d recognizes that the complex physical creature known as man is imbued with a soul and thus, with holiness. Humanity, for the believer in the revelation at Sinai, is the understanding that every single human being is significant to God and, as a result, must be important to man. The Enlightenment and a modernity that viewed its current age as a progression by disregarding spirituality in reality was in the state of regression.
Zygmunt Bauman, in his book Modernity and the Holocaust, examines the Holocaust in the context of modernity and demonstrates that the industrial know-how and the contemporary factory were key factors in the Final Solution. Thus the Holocaust did not occur despite modernity, but rather was a byproduct of modernity. Bauman continues by noting that the Nazi’s form of racism was for a “constructive purpose.” They desired to create a social order and organize humankind by separating and setting apart useful elements destined to live and thrive from harmful and morbid ones which ought to be exterminated. Thus the murder of Jews was an exercise in the rational management of society for the sake of world perfection.
The killing was not like the historical act of destruction, but rather, in Hitler’s mind, one of creation. The racism of the Holocaust is one with a strategy cutting out the elements that don’t fit. The removal of the Jews is analogous to the gardener or surgeon that sets apart useful elements destined to live and thrive, from harmful and morbid ones, which ought to be exterminated. This was very different than historical anti-Semitism where the Jew was a sinner. The modern form of anti-Semitism changed him into a cancer, and cancer cannot repent. The cancer for Hitler was not just Jewish blood but also the message of Judaism that represents a true humanism in its teachings. Nazi ideology was committed not only to the extermination of the Jews but also of Judaism.
For Bauman, the exterminatory version of Nazi anti-Semitism ought to be seen as a thoroughly modern phenomenon with managers and experts. They used a rational system of Authority, making the system a routine and finally dehumanizing the Jews. Bauman goes on to warn that by believing that there is no higher authority than the state, the potential of another holocaust is within us. In the modern world, violence has been taken out of sight, rather than forced out of existence. The mental distance from the final product means that bureaucrats may give commands without full knowledge of their effect. Thus bureaucracy is intrinsically capable of genocidal actions. Thus the great progress of modernity that rejected the old, introduced to humanity what is in essence the most inhumane.
Other thinkers were able to find meaning and return humanism to humanity in the post-Holocaust world by turning their attention to the very thing that the Nazis were trying to obliterate, the Torah. The great twentieth century philosopher and religious thinker Emmanuel Levinas made ethical responsibility toward “the Other” the foundation of his philosophical analyses. Levinas, without any doubt, was influenced by World War II. He lost family members in the Holocaust and, as a French citizen and soldier, Levinas himself became a prisoner of war in Germany and was forced to perform labor as a prisoner of war. For Levinas, “the Shoah that revealed- through the absurd- the emptiness of a merely ‘humanist’ Western culture, which could not prevent the horror.” His second major work, Otherwise than Being: or Beyond Essence, bears the following dedication: “To the closest among the six million murdered by the National Socialists, side by side with the millions and millions of all confessions and all nations who were victims of the same hatred of the other, the same anti-Semitism.” However, in the words of Richard Cohen, Levinas “returns love for hate, the wisdom of love, the humanism of the other, against the ‘hatred of the other.’” In essence the Holocaust is the outcome of secular humanism, which is an assault on the Humanism that one finds in Judaism.
According to Levinas, traditional metaphysics philosophizes about the self and, as a result, objectifies the other. Levinas, on the other hand, notes that ethics precedes philosophy and that ethics is the experience of the encounter with the other. Levinas sees the human face, which leads you beyond what appears on the surface, as “straightaway ethical.” Responsibility for Levinas is not for the truth, but rather for the other. The face of the other orders and ordains me. My responsibility for the other is without waiting for reciprocity. Levinas, turned to the Humanism of Jewish tradition and understood that Torah provides a way that goes beyond ontology. The “Other” is my responsibility. The only real humanism in the post- Holocaust world for Levinas is the “humanism of the other person.” For Levinas all philosophy must be preceded by ethics or “Ethics as First Philosophy” as the basis for all subsequent thought. Levinas, who journeyed through Heidegger to reach the Talmud, is a symbol of the preparatory stages of humanity from a world that turned to Athens for its philosophical Humanism, to one that, in the Messianic era, will turn to Jerusalem for its theological Humanism.
STATE OF ISRAEL
Since the time when the Jewish people were exiled from their homeland, a day did not go by that the nation did not pray and dream of their return to the Land of Israel. The traditional mental picture of the future return was an image of miraculous events similar to the exodus from Egypt where God carried the children of Israel on eagles' wings. The concept of preparing or hastening the redemption was left only to the spiritual realm. Nothing tangible ever played a part. The Jews simply waited. More than a few people were believed to actually be the Mashiach, and the nation desperately seeking for that leader was rather gullible in bestowing the title on questionable candidates. Simon bar Kokhba, the Jewish leader who led what is known as Bar Kokhba's revolt against the Roman Empire in 132 CE, was believed to be the chosen one even in the opinion of the great rabbinic leaders of the time. Unfortunately, with the failure of the revolt, and the death of Simon bar Kokhba, he no longer was a candidate for the coveted position. Another failed Messiah was the charismatic yet mad Sabbatai Zevi ( 1626-1676), the Ottoman Kabalistic individual who claimed to be the Messiah but then converted to Islam; not a move expected from the King of the Jews. The effect of Sabbatai Zevi remained for so many years on the Jewish community that even nowadays he still has followers in the Sabbatean Crypto-Jews of the Near East known as the Donmeh. When the alleged Mashiach would fail, the nation would go through a recovery period, and then return to the aged tradition of proclaiming, “I believe with perfect faith in the coming of the Messiah. No matter how long it takes, I will await His coming every day.” Nothing but proclamations and prayer was viewed as fitting for the Jewish condition. All this changed by the end of the nineteenth century.
Although Jews throughout the ages returned to the Promised Land, it was always as individuals with the mission of living in the Land of Israel but still considering their existence as one that is in exile. However with the secular Zionist movement, formally established by the Austro-Hungarian journalist Theodor Herzl, gaining support for the reestablishment of a homeland and a haven for the Jewish People in Palestine, the religious community that had a tradition of passivity regarding the final return was faced with a serious dilemma. Are we to join a secular movement and actively prepare for a return before heaven has given a sign that the time has come? The many years of debate came to an end with the annihilation of European Jewry. The Jews coming out of the concentration camps after losing all of their families were physically broken and emotionally crushed. Nevertheless, from within their soul they discovered a new spirit with the will to rebuild. The survivors living in the displaced persons camps had nowhere to go. They were not welcome in their old homes, as those were taken by their gentile neighbors. Other countries, like the United States, had refugee quotas, and Palestine was under the British mandate that was imprisoning illegal Jewish immigrants in Cyprus. The Beriha literally, “flight” or “escape,” under the leadership of Abba Kovner was a way of getting 250,000 survivors of the Holocaust to the Land of Israel. It is considered the largest organized illegal mass movement in modern times. Yet for the majority of the Jews in the DP camps the situation was dire.
Finally, on May 14, 1948, at the end of the British mandate, the Jewish Agency, led by Ben-Gurion declared the creation of the State of Israel. The State finally gave the opportunity for thousands of survivors to begin rebuilding a life that was taken away by the Nazis. After two thousand years in the Diaspora, the Jew was at home. In retrospect, Jews from all walks of life, and non-Jews that are willing to give an honest look at the reality of the State of Israel, understand that indeed it is a miracle. As Charles Krauthammer writes, “Besides restoring Jewish sovereignty, the establishment of the State of Israel embodied many subsidiary miracles, from the creation of the first Jewish army since Roman times to the only recorded instance of the resurrection of a dead language — Hebrew, now the daily tongue of a vibrant nation of seven million.” It may not be the miracle imagined by the Jews in exile for two thousand years, nevertheless it is viewed as a sign and gift from above. By the Children of Israel returning to the promised land a bright light is beginning to shine from Zion as the dwellers of the promised land will complete the process of teaching the world what true humanism is, namely, being faithful to the creator by being devoted to man.
However, although they are now finally at home, the Jews of Israel are facing a new serious challenge. This new challenge is from a group of people that are indeed devoted with passion to a higher cause, however they have a corrupted notion of what a higher being would desire. This radical entity that calls murderers martyrs is blindly following its faith without self-examination, and thus is performing the most inhumane acts in the name of a caring God. The State of Israel is faced with elements of radical Islam and is faced with what became known as the “Israeli Palestinian conflict.”
The ongoing dispute between the State of Israel and the Palestinians is a conflict that, unfortunately, has no solution appearing in the horizon. The great Catalan rabbi, philosopher Rabbi Moshe ben Nachman (1194-1270), known by the acronym Ramban, writes in his commentary on the Pentateuch that “the land of Israel remains desolate when the Jews are in exile. This is a good thing for the children of Israel when they return to their homeland” (Leviticus 26:16). In fact, the Land of Israel, named Palestine only after the Romans destroyed the land, was never an independent country and was continuously controlled by large empires. Towards the end of the nineteenth century, as Jews immigrated to the land, economic growth in the region provided job opportunities for Arab workers. Consequently, the Arab population of Palestine swelled due to the influx of Arab immigrants from Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, and other Arab countries. The Balfour Declaration was an unambiguous letter that indicated that the British Empire understood the Jewish historical right to the land. On November 2, 1917, Lord Arthur James Balfour sent the following letter to the Lord Walter Rothschild:
His Majesty's Government views with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non- Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.
Yet, due to pressure from Arab countries, the British did not permit the Jews to return to their “national home” and greatly curtailed entry of Jewish refugees into Israel even after World War Two. Following several years of Jewish resistance, in addition to Britain’s financial burden subsequent to World War Two, Britain turned the issue of Palestine over to the United Nations. In 1947, the U.N. approved the partition of the British Mandate of Palestine into two states: one Jewish and one Arab. The Jewish leadership accepted the plan, but Palestinian Arab leaders, supported by the Arab League, rejected the plan. Arab rejection became the pattern and is the foundation for the unfortunate reality known as the “Israeli Palestinian conflict.” All talks and negotiations
regarding a solution to the problem are not able to fix the fault that came about as a result of the historic rejection.
Yet, the modern State of Israel, which views its creation as Messianic, must remember the other component of the Messianic era, which is true Humanism: responsibility. Although a nation has a moral duty to protect its inhabitants, Judaism has always taught that responsibility does not end at a border. Although a hierarchy does exist and family comes before neighbors and neighbors before the stranger, responsibility in essence is without boundaries. Jews that pronounce every single Sabbath in their synagogues throughout the world that the State of Israel is “reshit tzemichat ge'ulatenu” -the beginning of the sprouting of our redemption- must bear in mind the complete picture of the redemption, one that has a sense of responsibility to all inhabitants of the planet.
As modern man and science uncovered the secrets of the planet, as the de-spiritualization of nature occurred, reason became the new sanctuary for the human being. With the outbreak of the First World War, Europe realized that the utopian world that used reason as its foundation, had crumbled. After reason killed God, and human conduct killed reason, man after August 1914 asked himself, “What is man?” Existential philosophy, the product of man in confusion and dissolution with nothing firm and familiar to turn to, represents the human condition: a soul lost with an inner desire and thirst for meaning, yet it cannot find the well. The result is a world with internal strife and external conflict with nothing concrete to turn to. Judaism provides for humanity a light that illuminates life by removing the darkness of doubt and by providing direction in the economy of being.
As the children of Israel are away from their spiritual center of Jerusalem, they retain a minor home of worship where they congregate to pray, reflect and study. The Beit Knesset or Synagogue is to serve in some ways as a minor temple. Just as in the Temple in Jerusalem they turned to their creator for inspiration and guidance, so too in the Beit Knesset of the exile. In addition, just as in the Temple the nation understood that the service preformed was for the welfare of humanity, so too the Beit Knesset is to remind the Jewish nation of their significant mission as educators of humanity.
Among the requirements for construction of a synagogue listed in the Talmud we find that the structure of the building must be facing Jerusalem. In addition the Beit Knesset must have windows facing the outside world (Talmud Brachot 34a). Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook notes the purpose of the windows is to remind the devoted Jew that his prayer is not just for himself or for those within the structure, but rather for humanity. The Jew must look beyond the walls and recognize his unique task as one that is concerned not just for himself but rather for the other. However, living for the other is not sufficient. The Jew must understand that while he is thinking, praying and inspiring humanity he must be facing Jerusalem and thus recognize that the values that determine what is considered “good” for the other must originate in Jerusalem. The appropriate balance of spirituality, which is full of devotion to the higher being and humanity, and is concerned for the welfare of all dwellers of the planet, must come from Sinai and Jerusalem. When the house of worship is lacking windows, it is a very dangerous structure. Commitment to a higher being must carry with it a commitment to all beings.
Messianic Judaism is a vision of a world where purpose will unite all dwellers of the planet. The message of the Torah will be taught to all nations and the ethics from Sinai will be the guiding light and generate a spiritual enlightenment as opposed to the enlightenment emanating from Descartes’ “reason.” Leading up to that period the Jew must rediscover the true message of Torah: the message of Jewish Humanism and thus responsibility. Jews must remind themselves that the greatness of their people is not due to the number of recipients of the Nobel Prize or the list of extraordinary movie producers in Hollywood, but rather to what they have to offer humanity on a spiritual level. As Levinas would often say, to be Jewish is “not the pride or the vanity of being Jewish. That is worth nothing. But an awareness of the extraordinary privilege of undoing the banality of existence, of belonging to a people who are human before humanity.” The new world and the new spirit of the Messianic era will be one of true concern, care and compassion and thus would be worthy of existing for a long time. As the Chief Rabbi of the United Hebrew Congregations of the Commonwealth Jonathan Sacks writes, “The ironic yet utterly humane lesson of history is that what renders a culture invulnerable is the compassion it shows to the vulnerable. The ultimate value we should be concerned to maximize is human dignity-the dignity of all human beings, equally, as children of the creative, redeeming God.”
Bibliography
BOOKS
Bauer, Yehudah. History of the Holocaust. New York: Franklin Watts, 1982.
Bauman, Zygmunt. Modernity and the Holocaust. Ithaca, N.Y: Cornell University Press, 1989.
Bein, Alex. Theodore Herzl. New York: Holt, Rinehart, 1975.
Cohen, Hermann. Reason and Hope. Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College Press, 1993.
Dessler, Rabbi Eliyahu Eliezer. Michtav me-Eliyahu III.Jerusalem:Feldheim, 1978.
Duke, David. Jewish Supremacism: My Awakening to the Jewish Question. Mandeville: Free Speech Books, 1998.
Fackenheim, Emil L. To Mend the World. New York: Schocken Books, 1982.
Karo, Yosef. Shulchan Aruch. Venice: Printz, 1565.
Katz, Jacob. Exclusiveness and Tolerance: Studies in Jewish-Gentile Relations in Medieval and Modern Times. London: Oxford University Press, 1961.
Kook, Rabbi Abraham Isaac. Olat Reiah. Jerusalem: MHK, 1939.
Levinas, Emmanuel. Difficult Freedom: Essays on Judaism. London: Athlone Press, 1990.
__________. Ethics and Infinity, Conversations with Philippe Nemo, translated by R. Cohen. Pittsburgh: Duquesne University Press, 1985.
__________. Humanism and the Other, translated by Nidra Poller. Champaign: University of Illinois, 2003.
___________. Is it Righteous to be? Interviews with Emmanuel Levinas, edited by Jill Robbins. Stanford: Stanford UP, 2001.
Liphshitz, Israel. Tiferes Yisrael. Jerusalem: Meoroth, 1976.
Maimonides, Moses. Introduction to the Mishnah. Jerusalem: MHK, 1961.
___________.Mishneh Torah- Laws of Kings. New York: Binah, 1947.
Malka, Salomon. Emmanuel Levinas: His Life and Legacy, translated by Michael Kigel and Sonja M. Embree. Pittsburgh: Duquesne University Press, 2006
Misnah Avot. Jerusalem: Eshkol, 1975.
Raz, Simcha. Angel Among Men: Impressions from the Life of Rav Avraham Yitzchak Hakohen Kook Z"L. Jerusalem: Urim, 2003.
Saadiah Gaon. Emunot Vedeot. Jerusalem: Kafach, 1970.
Sacks, Jonathan. The Dignity of Difference: How to Avoid the Clash of Civilizations. London and New York: Continuum, 2002.
Sforno, Ovadiah. Commentary on the Torah. 2 Vols. Jerusalem: Kuperman, 1992.
Teichtal, Rabbi Yisachar Shlomo. Eim Habanim Semeichah. Jerusalem: Kol Mevaser, 1998.
Teitelbaum, Rabbi Joel. Va'Yoel Moshe, Vol. II. New York: 1958.
The Talmud (Vilna: Romm 1880).
ARTICLES
Dietrich, Wendell S. “The Function of the Idea of Messianic Mankind in Hermann Cohen's Later Thought.” Journal of the American Academy of Religion 48(1980): 2.
Fishman, Talya. “The Rhineland Pietists' Sacralization of Oral Torah.”
Jewish Quarterly Review 96 (2006): 1.
Halbertal, Moshe “Ones Possessed of Religion: Religious Tolerance in The Teachings of The Me’iri” The Edah Journal 1(2000): 1.
Korn, Eugene. “Tselem Elokim and the Dialectic of Jewish Morality.” Tradition 2 (1997): 2.
Krauthammer, Charles. “Israeli Miracle” National Review Online, May 16, 2008.
Lichtenstein, Aharon. “Mah Enosh: Reflections on the Relation between Judaism and Humanism.” Torah u-Madda Journal 14 (2006/2007).
Mittleman, Alan. “The Jew in Christian Culture by Hermann Cohen: An Introduction and Translation.” Modern Judaism 23 (2003): 1.
Patterson, David. “Where Is Your Brother”? Jewish Teachings on the “Stranger,” unpublished.
Roth, Cecil. “The Disputation of Barcelona 1263.” The Harvard Theological Review 43 (1950): 2.
Twain, Mark. “Concerning The Jews.” Harper's Magazine, March, 1898.
Wallach, Luitpold. “The Colloquy of Marcus Aurelius with the Patriarch Judah I.”
The Jewish Quarterly Review, New Series 31 (Jan., 1941): 3.
